Sutton Link Consultation Report

Home , Belgrave Walk tram stop, Sutton Link, Tramlink

Sutton Link

Consultation Report April 2019 Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 1. About the proposals ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Purpose ...... 7 2. About the consultation ...... 10 2.1 Purpose ...... 10 2.2 Consultation history ...... 10 2.3 TfL’s consultation - Who we consulted ...... 10 2.4 Dates and duration ...... 10 2.5 What we asked ...... 11 2.6 Methods of responding ...... 11 2.7 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 11 2.8 Equalities Assessment ...... 14 2.9 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 15 3. About the respondents ...... 16 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 16 3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 16 3.3 Respondent type ...... 17 3.4 Demographics ...... 17 3.5 Postcode analysis ...... 20 4. Summary of all consultation responses ...... 24 4.1 Support or Opposition for the proposals in-principle ...... 24 4.2 Route Options ...... 25 4.3 Transport Options ...... 31 4.4 Quality of Consultation ...... 36 4.5 List of responding stakeholders ...... 36 5. Next steps ...... 44

List of figures

Figure 1 Sutton Link route options ...... 6 Figure 2 Table to show the number and type of respondents ...... 16 Figure 3 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 16 Figure 4 Number of respondents by respondent type ...... 17 Figure 5 Gender of respondents...... 17 Figure 6 Age of respondents ...... 18 Figure 7 Ethnicity of respondents ...... 18 Figure 8 Sexual orientation of respondents ...... 19 Figure 9 Faith of respondents...... 19 Figure 10 Number of respondents who considered that they had a health problem or disability ...... 20 Figure 11 The number of respondents from the top 10 most represented postcode areas ...... 21 Figure 12 Distribution of respondents by area ...... 21 Figure 13 Map to show respondents in the Sutton and Merton areas by their in-principle support to the Sutton Link ...... 23 Figure 14 In-principle support and opposition to the Sutton Link ...... 24 Figure 15 Support and opposition to each route option ...... 25 Figure 16 Issues of importance to respondents and which influenced their support or opposition to each route option ...... 26 Figure 17 Route preference ...... 30 Figure 18 Top 10 most frequently raised issues about the route options ...... 30 Figure 19 Support and opposition for each transport option ...... 31 Figure 20 Issues of importance to respondents and which influenced their support or opposition to each transport option ...... 32 Figure 21 Overall transport option preference ...... 35 Figure 22 Top 10 most frequently raised issues about the transport options ...... 35 Figure 23 Views on the quality of the consultation ...... 36

Executive summary

We have been working closely with the London Boroughs of Sutton and Merton to investigate options to improve public transport connectivity and support growth within the boroughs. Our project is called the Sutton Link and it is intended to provide a new direct and quicker transport link between Sutton and Merton.

We held a consultation from 31 October to 6 January 2019, and asked respondents whether or not they supported the Sutton Link in principle. We also asked which of the route and transport options they supported and provided the means for them to raise other issues of concern, so that we could take these into account as we continued the scheme development process. There were 5,980 responses to the consultation in total.

There was significant support for the Sutton Link in principle. A total of 86 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the scheme, although some respondents objected in principle to our proposals. Amongst other questions, we asked respondents the extent to which they supported or opposed each of the three route options we included in our consultation. We found that:

 65 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported Option 1 (South Wimbledon – Sutton)  55 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported Option 2 (Colliers Wood – Sutton)  49 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported Option 3 (Wimbledon – Sutton)

We also asked respondents the extent to which they supported or opposed each of the transport options we included. We found that:

 81 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the Tram option  40 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the Bus Rapid Transit option

We identified over 350 separate issues raised by respondents. In very broad terms these issues were concerned with:

 General support or opposition to the Sutton Link in principle, for example raising concerns about potential negative impacts (including environmental impacts, funding concerns or impacts on other road users), or by noting the benefits some people thought the link could provide  Positive or negative issues regarding each route specifically, and additionally about each of the transport options included in the consultation  Issues which respondents wished us to bear in mind as we develop more detailed proposals for the Sutton Link

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction Working with the boroughs of Sutton and Merton, we undertook an option selection process to determine which public transport options would best meet the project objectives, while remaining in line with the wider policy context, including the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Five options, which included a combination of three route and two mode options – Tram and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – were shortlisted.

Our consultation described the three shortlisted routes and two transport modes identified as the best options for the Sutton Link. Our materials included a description of the alignment and the pros and cons of each route, including potential journey times, interchanges with existing services, challenges for construction and potential impacts on parks and open space; among other considerations. We also included a comparison between Tram and BRT, with details of the similarities and differences between the two modes.

The alignment for the shortlisted route options is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Sutton Link route options

1.2 Purpose The Sutton Link would create a high-capacity route for people travelling between Sutton town centre and Merton. It would connect with other major transport services into central London and across south London, including National Rail, London Underground and existing tram and bus services. It would make journeys by public transport quicker and more attractive, and reduce the need for trips by private car.

Many of the neighbourhoods along the proposed routes have limited public transport options. The Sutton Link would support new homes being built and would improve access to jobs, services, major transport hubs and leisure opportunities across both boroughs and beyond.

Depending on which route is chosen, the Sutton Link aims to:

 Improve public transport capacity and reliability Enable modal shift by improving public transport capacity and quality of service that caters for forecast growth with interventions that provide higher frequency, improved journey times and greater reliability whilst being affordable and offering value for money.

 Improve connectivity within Sutton and Merton and with central London Improve access to jobs, services, major transport hubs and leisure opportunities, enabling greater participation in social activity from those in currently deprived neighbourhoods.

 Support good growth Support the delivery of new housing, new employment floorspace and new jobs by maximising the potential of Opportunity Areas and intensification of land use through improved public transport provision. Provide the flexibility to support the realisation of potential long-term development opportunities.

 Provide safe, secure and accessible transport Deliver improvements which create a safe and secure transport network for pedestrians, cyclists, other road users and public transport, supporting the Mayor's Vision Zero policy. Enhance the physical accessibility of the transport network, considering the Healthy Streets approach.  Support the delivery of mode shift to public transport and environmental priorities Support the delivery of the Mayor's strategic target of more trips in London being made by foot, cycle or public transport. Deliver improvements that support the Mayor's priorities for air quality and carbon emissions.

 Support the vitality and performance of town centres in Sutton and Merton

Support the role and function of Sutton as a metropolitan centre. Improve the vitality and attractiveness of the less well-performing district centres in Sutton and Merton

1.2.1 Supporting growth The draft London Plan identifies the area in south London between Wimbledon, Sutton and Croydon, referred to as the ‘Tram Triangle’, as having the potential to deliver substantial housing and employment growth. The plan designates an Opportunity Area for Sutton with 5,000 homes and 3,500 jobs. Across the Sutton Link corridor through Sutton and Merton, the Sutton Link would support the delivery of at least 10,000 homes, including many of those in Sutton town centre.

A potential extension of the existing London Trams network to Sutton has been identified as one component of our Trams for Growth programme. This 15 year plan seeks to ensure that the London Trams network has sufficient capacity to accommodate growing demand, improve reliability and support the regeneration of town centres in south London.

Sutton and Merton councils both have ambitious aspirations to support their communities with new homes, jobs and improved town centres. A new tram or BRT service will help support these aspirations.

1.2.2 Improving access to jobs and services Some areas of Sutton and Merton, including the north of Sutton town centre, Rosehill and St Helier are relatively poorly served by public transport. The existing public transport system in these areas is centred around bus services and is restricting residents access to jobs, services and leisure opportunities. The Sutton Link will therefore help address this issue with tram or BRT services providing faster journey times and new connections. This will give better access to job opportunities and other services in Sutton town centre and central London.

1.2.3 Supporting a mode shift from cars to public transport Walking distances, wait times and lower public transport service quality means that cars have historically been seen as a more effective way to travel between and within Sutton and Merton. Improving the public transport available through the Sutton Link project will therefore help encourage mode shift from private cars to public transport.

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose The objectives of the consultation were to:

. Give the public and other stakeholders sufficient information about the scheme to enable them to give informed responses to the consultation

. Outline each route option and explain why they have been brought forward to consultation

. Explain each transport option, outlining the relative advantages and disadvantages of each

. Enable respondents to identify issues we might not have already thought of

. Allow the public and other stakeholders to influence our final decision about the scheme and the impact on the local area

2.2 Consultation history From July to August 2014, the London Boroughs of Sutton and Merton held a four- week consultation on proposals for an extension to the then Tramlink network from Wimbledon to Sutton, via Morden1. There were approximately 10,000 responses and 84 per cent of respondents supported or strongly supported the proposals.

2.3 TfL’s consultation - Who we consulted

The consultation was open to anyone who had a view about our proposals, with a particular focus on residents and businesses in the London Boroughs of Sutton and Merton. We also consulted a range of stakeholders, including the London Boroughs of Sutton and Merton, local resident groups and businesses, and others. A full list of the stakeholders we consulted is in Appendix A

2.4 Dates and duration The consultation ran for over nine weeks, from Wednesday 31 October to Sunday 6 January 2019.

1 Details are at https://mertonchamber.co.uk/councils-ask-views-possible-tramlink-extension/ 10

2.5 What we asked Our consultation questionnaire consisted of 28 questions separated into three sections:

 ‘Our proposals’, which sought views on each of the transport and route options we included in the consultation, and provided the means for respondents to record any other comments they might have  ‘About you’, which sought information about the respondents and how they had heard about the consultation  ‘Equality monitoring’, which requested demographic information (on a voluntary basis) about each respondent

A copy of our consultation questionnaire is included in Appendix A.

2.6 Methods of responding There were three channels available to respondents to submit their views:

 By completing our online questionnaire  In writing to freepost address (FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS)  By email to [email protected]

2.7 Consultation materials and publicity

2.7.1 Website The consultation was published online via the TfL consultation website at www.tfl.gov.uk/sutton-link. Our website provided a comprehensive overview of our proposals, and also included a range of supporting factsheets and a ‘Background to Consultation Report’ which described our proposals in more detail. Our website also included a link to our consultation questionnaire and listed the roadshow events we planned. Copies of the consultation materials we provided on our website are included in Appendix A.

2.7.2 Letters and leaflets We sent 40,000 leaflets to households in the London Boroughs of Sutton and Merton which were within 250m of our three route options. The purpose of our mailing was

11 to advertise the consultation and the roadshow events we had organised. The leaflet was intended to raise awareness that the consultation was taking place (and how recipients could find out more or have their say), and where and when our roadshow events would be taking place. A copy of the leaflet and the area within which it was distributed are included in Appendix A.

The London Borough of Sutton distributed 86,811 letters to properties across the borough. A copy of the letter sent by the London Borough of Sutton can be seen in Appendix A.

2.7.3 Emails We sent 71,812 emails to residents of the Sutton, Merton, Wimbledon and Colliers Wood areas who had registered to receive emails from us. We also included users of the London Tram service and South Wimbledon, Colliers Wood, Wimbledon and Morden London Underground stations. We contacted 148 stakeholders, inviting them to respond to the Sutton Link consultation, and offered a meeting to discuss the proposals where we considered it would be useful to do so. The emails were intended to raise awareness that the consultation was taking place and included a link to our consultation website. We sent a reminder email to stakeholders on 3 January 2019, as a means to encourage them to respond to the consultation if they had not already done so. Copies of the emails can be seen in Appendix A.

2.7.5 Press and media activity The launch of our consultation was promoted additionally through press releases issued by the London Borough of Sutton and Institute of Cancer Research. Copies of each press release are included in Appendix A.

The consultation was promoted by a number of media outlets, including the following: https://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/17191594.sutton-link-plans-for-multi- million-route-linking-merton-and-sutton-narrowed-down-to-three-options/ https://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/sutton-link-tram-or-bus-rapid- transit-consultation-opens.html https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2018/10/31/tfl-opens-consultation-for-extension-of- the-south-london-tram/ https://www.suttonvoice.co.uk/2018/11/08/take-part-in-consultation-for-new-sutton- link-project/ https://mertonnews.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/mymerton76_web-003.pdf

2.7.6 Press and digital advertising The consultation was promoted through digital and press advertising. A copy of our advertisement is included in Appendix A.

Our advertisement was posted in the Sutton Guardian and Wimbledon Guardian series and appeared throughout the consultation, on the dates indicated in the table below:

Dates our advertisement appeared Sutton Guardian 31 October, 8 November, 22 November, 6 December, 20 December

Wimbledon 8 November, 29 November, 13 December Guardian series

An animated version of our advertisement was created as an eye-catching means of attracting visits to our consultation website. The animated advertisement was targeted at people browsing a range of related websites in the boroughs of Sutton and Merton. The animation provided a direct link to our consultation website when ‘clicked through’.

2.7.7 On-street advertising We created a poster-sized version of our advertisement and posted it at bus stops and other key locations in the vicinity of the three proposed route options included in our consultation.

2.7.8 Public meetings, events and exhibitions We held 15 public events across Sutton and Merton to provide information about the consultation and answer questions. These were held at the following times and locations:

8 November 2018 at 14:00 to 20:00, South Wimbledon Station, Merton High Street, London, SW19 1DE

10 November 2018 at 10:00 to 17:00, St Nicholas Centre, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1AY

13 November 2018 at 14:00 to 20:00, The Nelson Health Centre, Kingston Road, London, SW20 8DA

15 November 2018 at 14:00 to 20:00, Sutton Central Library, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, SM1 1EA

13 17 November 2018 at 11:00 to 17:00, Morden Station, London Road, Morden, SM4 5AZ

20 November 2018 at 13:00 to 19:00, Sutton Life Centre, 24 Acorn Close, Sutton, SM3 9PX

21 November 2018 at 15:00 to 20:00, Mitcham Parish Centre, Church Path, Mitcham, CR4 3BN

22 November 2018 at 14:00 to 20:00, The Salvation Army, 45 Benhill Avenue, Sutton, SM1 4DD

24 November 2018 at 11:00 to 16:00, Colliers Wood Library, 105-109 High Street, Colliers Wood, SW19 2HR

27 November 2018 at 10:00 to 16:00, Merton Civic Centre, London Road, Morden, SM4 5DX

28 November 2018 at 12:00 to 19:00, Wimbledon Library, 35 Wimbledon Hill Road, London, SW19 7NB

1 December 2018 at 12:00 to 18:00, Wimbledon Station, Wimbledon, London, SW19 7NL

4 December 2018 at 14:00 to 19:00, Colliers Wood Library, 105-109 High Street, Colliers Wood, SW19 2HR

5 December 2018 at 12:00 to 18:00, David Weir Leisure Centre, Middleton Road, Carshalton, SM5 1SL

6 December 2018 at 12:00 to 18:00, David Weir Leisure Centre, Middleton Road, Carshalton, SM5 1SL

2.8 Equalities Assessment We undertook an assessment of the consultation in advance of its launch to ensure that it would be participative as possible. The following actions were taken to ensure that everyone who had a view could submit it:

 Provided the consultation materials both on-line and in hard-copy on request. Our materials were also available in Braille, large-print or another language on reasonable request  Arranged a series of Roadshow events at accessible venues, at which staff would be available to answer questions and provide any assistance as might have been necessary to enable all members of the community to participate in the consultation

 Included stakeholder groups representing disabled and older people within the stakeholder email campaign  Publicised the launch of the consultation in a variety of ways, including through distributing a consultation leaflet, press and digital advertising and through posters in the locality

2.9 Analysis of consultation responses TfL commissioned 2CV, an independent social research agency to analyse the consultation responses.

All closed questions were reviewed and the results tabulated and reported.

All open questions, where respondents provided comments, were read and analysed in detail. The online questionnaire contained two free text boxes to enable respondents to comment or make suggestions regarding any or all of the proposals. Respondents were also free to respond by email or letter. All comments and suggestions received, whether by email, letter or through our online questionnaire were reviewed in order to identify common themes raised by respondents.

2CV developed a ‘code frame’ for each of the open questions. Each code frame is simply a list of the issues raised during the consultation; together with the frequency each was raised. Every open text response was analysed and either a new code was created or the response was added to one or more of the existing codes within the code frame. Each response could be coded into multiple codes, depending on the number of issues raised by the individual.

A code was created for each substantive point raised. Where it was determined that a comment was providing context to an issue, rather than forming a separate point, these did not form a separate code.

Quality was paramount in the coding process. Coding was carried out by highly experienced coders with many years of experience. To ensure consistency in the way coding was approached and to minimise subjectivity, the number of coders working on each question was limited. Checks were carried out on a regular basis by 2CV and us to ensure quality and consistency of coding.

The ‘About the respondents’ section shows data for all respondents who responded to the consultation, regardless of whether they answered each specific question or not. For the ‘Summary of all consultation responses’ section, all data is shown among those who answered each question.

3. About the respondents

This section describes who replied to the consultation, including how they heard about the consultation and the areas they live in.

3.1 Number of respondents There were 5,980 respondents to the consultation in total. The table below shows the proportion of these which were from the public, and which were from stakeholders.

Figure 2 Table to show the number and type of respondents Respondents Total % Public responses 5935 99.3 Stakeholder responses 45 0.7 Total 5980 -

3.2 How respondents heard about the consultation 5,418 out of 5,980 respondents answered this question. The majority heard about the consultation directly through a mailing from TfL (ie. by having received a copy of our promotional leaflet), with an email from TfL and social media secondary sources of awareness. Other sources consisted of communication from Sutton Council and word of mouth.

Figure 3 How respondents heard about the consultation

How respondents heard Total % Received a mailing from TfL 1,992 33% Received an email from TfL 850 14% Social media 824 14% Read about it in the press 368 6% Saw it on the TfL website 120 2% Other 1,264 21% Not Answered 562 9% Total 5,980 100%

3.3 Respondent type 5,757 out of 5,980 respondents answered this question. The majority of respondents to the consultation were local residents. Please note that respondents were free to select as many options as they believed applied to them.

Figure 4 Number of respondents by respondent type Respondent type Total % A local resident 5,390 90% Employed locally 782 13% A commuter to the area 588 10% A visitor to the area 208 3% A local business owner 205 3% Not local but interested in the scheme 144 2% A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 9 0% Other (please specify) 109 2% Not answered 223 4%

3.4 Demographics The majority of respondents to the consultation were male (52%).

Figure 5 Gender of respondents Gender Total % Male 3,099 52% Female 2,119 35% Gender Neutral 13 0% Trans Male or Female2 3 0% Prefer not to say 362 6% Not answered 384 6% Total 5,980 100%

2 We received a low number of responses from people identifying as Trans Male or Trans Female so have grouped them to limit as much as possible the chance that individuals might be identifiable as having replied to our consultation. 17

While there was a good distribution in the age ranges of respondents to the consultation, a significant number of respondents were aged from 31 – 45.

Figure 6 Age of respondents Age Total % Under 15 26 0% 16-20 95 2% 21-25 168 3% 26-30 378 6% 31-35 649 11% 36-40 684 11% 41-45 580 10% 46-50 483 8% 51-55 464 8% 56-60 414 7% 61-65 412 7% 66-70 356 6% 71+ 405 7% Prefer not to say 481 8% Not answered 385 6% Total 5,980 100%

A small majority of respondents to the consultation were of White British ethnicity.

Figure 7 Ethnicity of respondents Ethnicity Total % White – British 3,225 54% White – Irish 108 2% White – Other 598 10% Black or Black British – African 78 1% Black or Black British – Caribbean 53 1% Black or Black British – Other 9 0% Asian or Asian British – Bangladesh 32 1% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 106 2% Asian or Asian British – Indian 267 4%

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 92 2% Asian or Asian British – Other 116 2% Mixed – White and Asian 46 1% Mixed – White and Black African 14 0% Mixed – White and Caribbean 21 0% Mixed – Other 65 1% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 23 0% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 4 0% Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 20 0% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 18 0% Other Ethnic Group 28 0% Prefer not to say 630 11% Not answered 427 7% Total 5,980 100%

The majority of respondents were Heterosexual.

Figure 8 Sexual orientation of respondents Sexual orientation Total % Heterosexual 4,025 67% Gay man 155 3% Lesbian 23 0% Bisexual 63 1% Other 29 0% Prefer not to say 1,152 19% Not answered 533 9% Total 5,980 100%

A majority of respondents identified as Christian, stated they had no religion or preferred not to define their faith to us.

Figure 9 Faith of respondents Religious Faith Total % Christian 2,050 34% Hindu 218 4%

Muslim 184 3% Jewish 25 0% Buddhist 41 1% Sikh 6 0% Other 101 2% No religion 1,826 31% Prefer not to say 1,046 17% Not answered 483 8% Total 5,980 100% A majority of respondents considered that they do not have a health problem or disability.

Figure 10 Number of respondents who considered that they had a health problem or disability Health problem or disability/ day-to-day limitations Total % Yes, limited a lot 149 2% Yes, limited a little 418 7% No 4,547 76% Prefer not to say 470 8% Not answered 396 7% Total 5,980 100%

3.5 Postcode analysis Valid postcodes were provided by 4,979 of the 5,980 respondents. Respondents were most commonly in the boroughs of Sutton (3,906) and Merton (814). We have provided in Appendix B a table to show the number of responses received from each represented borough in addition to the boroughs of Sutton and Merton. We have also included a series of maps, including a map to show the location of each respondent who provided a valid postcode to us.

We have analysed the top 10 most frequently represented postcode areas in terms of responses to the consultation. This is shown in the table below.

The most represented postcode area was SM1.

Figure 11 The number of respondents from the top 10 most represented postcode areas

SM1 1,379 SM2 790 SM5 774 SM6 418 SW19 370 SM4 308 SM3 263 CR4 155 KT4 123 SW20 79

Respondents were classified by borough/ district of residence. London and Surrey areas with three or more respondents are shown. Respondents outside of London or Surrey have been grouped for the purposes of the table below.

Figure 12 Distribution of respondents by area All respondents 5,980 Total % Sutton 3,906 65% Merton 814 14% Croydon 65 1% Wandsworth 28 0.5% Lambeth 19 0.3% Epsom and Ewell 16 0.3% Kingston upon Thames 16 0.3% Reigate and Banstead 16 0.3% Bromley 10 0.2% Lewisham 9 0.2% Richmond upon Thames 6 0.1% Newham 5 0.1% Tower Hamlets 5 0.1% Islington 4 0.1%

Southwark 4 0.1% Westminster 4 0.1% Brent 3 0.1% Camden 3 0.1% Guildford 3 0.1% Hammersmith and Fulham 3 0.1% Haringey 3 0.1% Other London/Surrey 14 0.2% Outside of London/ Surrey 23 0.4% No postcode provided 1,001 17%

We have provided below a map to show the in-principle views of respondents in the Sutton, Merton and surrounding areas

Figure 13 Map to show respondents in the Sutton and Merton areas by their in-principle support to the Sutton Link

4. Summary of all consultation responses

4.1 Support or Opposition for the proposals in-principle We asked respondents to tell us their view on the principle of the Sutton Link proposals. The majority of respondents supported or strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle.

Figure 14 In-principle support and opposition to the Sutton Link 100%

90% Strongly support

80% Support

70%

68%

60% Don’t know

50% Neither support nor oppose

40% Proportion Proportion respondents of

30% Oppose

18% 20% Strongly oppose

10% 5% 3% 5% 0% All Respondents (5,835)

4.2 Route Options

4.2.1 Support or opposition for each Route Options We asked respondents to tell us their level of support or opposition for each of the three route options. A majority of respondents supported or strongly supported options 1 or 2.

Figure 15 Support and opposition to each route option 100%

90% Strongly 27% 32% support

80% 39%

Support

70%

60% Don’t know 28% 17%

50% 1% 26% Neither 1% support nor 17%

40% oppose Proportion Proportion respondents of

1% 20% Oppose 30% 14% 16%

20% Strongly 13% oppose 10%

10% 18%

10% 11%

0% Route Option 1 Route Option 2 Route Option 3 All respondents All respondents All respondents (5,772) (5,765) (5,781)

4.2.2 Issues which were most important to respondents and which influenced their level of support or opposition for the route options We asked respondents what issues were most important to them and had influenced their support or opposition to each of the route options we described in the consultation. We provided respondents with a list of issues they could consider, and invited them to select as many as best described their position. We also enabled respondents to describe any other issues which were important to them in free text.

For each of the following three tables, the percentage columns indicate the total proportion of respondents who selected the options ‘Support’ or ‘Oppose’ from the total number who answered. We have not included those respondents who did not answer, or who selected another option. A copy of the complete list of issues raised by respondents in included in Appendix B.

Figure 16 Issues of importance to respondents and which influenced their support or opposition to each route option Reasons for Support / Opposition for Option Total Support Oppose 1 Base 5,670 % 3,700 % 1,170 % Survey options provided: Places served by route 3,148 56% 2,248 61% 491 42% Onward journey connections provided 2,981 53% 2,388 65% 289 25% Public transport journey times 2,266 40% 1,931 52% 162 14% Traffic congestion 2,191 39% 1,207 33% 699 60% Environmental impacts 1,554 27% 1,012 27% 370 32% Value for money 1,538 27% 930 25% 429 37% Effects on rail or bus services 1,431 25% 944 26% 320 27% Construction works affecting your area or journey 1,090 19% 503 14% 440 38% Cyclist and pedestrian impacts 721 13% 446 12% 201 17% Other comments made: Not beneficial / needed 153 3% 8 0% 111 9% Expression of support for Route 1 28 0% 27 1% 0 0% Expression of support for Tram 27 0% 19 1% 4 0% Safety concerns (transport safety / crime in area) 24 0% 5 0% 16 1% Number of transport options provided 17 0% 11 0% 4 0% Suggestion of alternative transport mode (eg underground 17 0% 6 0% 10 1% / overground extension) Improve existing services / routes instead of adding new 16 0% 2 0% 13 1% ones Time to implement 14 0% 9 0% 5 0% Integration into existing infrastructure 14 0% 7 0% 6 1% Regeneration of surrounding area 12 0% 9 0% 3 0% Frequency 12 0% 4 0% 6 1% Passenger experience (eg comfort, cleanliness, enjoyable, 12 0% 4 0% 4 0% convenience, quality, reliability) 26

Expression of opposition for Route 1 12 0% 1 0% 8 1% Accessibility 9 0% 4 0% 2 0% Expression of support for Route 2 8 0% 3 0% 1 0% Expression of support for BRT 7 0% 7 0% 0 0% Effects on housing value 7 0% 4 0% 3 0% Expression of support for Route 3 7 0% 2 0% 3 0% Need more information / details 6 0% 1 0% 3 0% Effects on businesses / commercial properties 5 0% 3 0% 2 0% Parking concerns 4 0% 1 0% 3 0% Ease of implementation 4 0% 1 0% 1 0% Fitness for future growth 4 0% 1 0% 3 0% Traffic lights need upgraded / improved 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% Visual impacts 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% Expression of opposition for Route 2 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% Crossrail 2 is uncertain 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% Expression of opposition for Tram 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Criticism of TfL 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Expression of opposition for Route 3 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% Out of scope comment 2 0% 0 0% 2 0% Unclear comment 3 0% 2 0% 1 0% Don’t Know/None 10 0% 1 0% 2 0%

Reasons for Support / Opposition for Option Total Support Oppose 2 Base 5,552 % 3,123 % 1,345 % Survey options provided: Places served by route 3,241 58% 2,019 65% 654 49% Onward journey connections provided 2,769 50% 1,919 61% 405 30% Public transport journey times 2,107 38% 1,610 52% 229 17% Traffic congestion 2,005 36% 935 30% 696 52% Value for money 1,400 25% 745 24% 440 33% Environmental impacts 1,394 25% 781 25% 377 28% Effects on rail or bus services 1,305 24% 787 25% 308 23% Construction works affecting your area or journey 1,028 19% 413 13% 434 32% Cyclist and pedestrian impacts 693 12% 367 12% 208 15% Other comments made: Not beneficial / needed 128 2% 7 0% 94 7% Expression of support for Tram 33 1% 23 1% 5 0% Expression of support for Route 2 33 1% 30 1% 1 0% Expression of support for Route 1 27 0% 12 0% 10 1% Safety concerns (transport safety / crime in area) 24 0% 5 0% 15 1%

Expression of opposition for Route 2 22 0% 3 0% 15 1% Integration into existing infrastructure 20 0% 13 0% 4 0% Number of transport options provided 14 0% 12 0% 1 0% Regeneration of surrounding area 14 0% 12 0% 2 0% Improve existing services / routes instead of adding new 13 0% 1 0% 11 1% ones Time to implement 12 0% 7 0% 5 0% Passenger experience (eg comfort, cleanliness, enjoyable, 12 0% 7 0% 3 0% convenience, quality, reliability) Suggestion of alternative transport mode (eg underground 10 0% 1 0% 8 1% / overground extension) Effects on businesses / commercial properties 9 0% 3 0% 5 0% Expression of support for Route 3 9 0% 3 0% 5 0% Expression of support for BRT 7 0% 5 0% 2 0% Parking concerns 6 0% 0 0% 6 0% Ease of implementation 6 0% 5 0% 1 0% Frequency 6 0% 3 0% 3 0% Expression of opposition for Route 1 6 0% 3 0% 2 0% Accessibility 5 0% 3 0% 2 0% Fitness for future growth 4 0% 3 0% 1 0% Need more information / details 4 0% 1 0% 1 0% Expression of opposition for Route 3 3 0% 2 0% 0 0% Traffic lights need upgraded / improved 2 0% 0 0% 1 0% Effects on housing value 2 0% 0 0% 2 0% Expression of opposition for Tram 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Don’t Know / None 41 1% 2 0% 21 2%

Reasons for Support / Opposition for Option Total Support Oppose 3 Base 5,549 % 2,726 % 1,913 % Survey options provided: Places served by route 3,070 55% 1,706 63% 925 48% Onward journey connections provided 2,306 42% 1,555 57% 457 24% Public transport journey times 1,984 36% 1,266 46% 459 24% Effects on rail or bus services 1,911 34% 723 27% 915 48% Value for money 1,712 31% 937 34% 572 30% Traffic congestion 1,561 28% 972 36% 394 21% Environmental impacts 1,204 22% 731 27% 301 16% Construction works affecting your area or journey 1,046 19% 476 17% 411 21% Cyclist and pedestrian impacts 540 10% 313 11% 144 8% Other comments made: Not beneficial / needed 508 9% 26 1% 395 21% Number of transport options provided 99 2% 17 1% 74 4% Time to implement 68 1% 10 0% 46 2% 28

Frequency 58 1% 29 1% 23 1% Integration into existing infrastructure 45 1% 35 1% 3 0% Expression of opposition for Route 3 42 1% 3 0% 31 2% Expression of support for Route 3 39 1% 31 1% 3 0% Improve existing services / routes instead of adding new 38 1% 5 0% 32 2% ones Passenger experience (eg comfort, cleanliness, enjoyable, 32 1% 15 1% 14 1% convenience, quality, reliability) Expression of support for Tram 28 1% 17 1% 8 0% Expression of support for Route 1 17 0% 3 0% 11 1% Suggestion of alternative transport mode (eg underground 15 0% 2 0% 11 1% / overground extension) Accessibility 14 0% 8 0% 5 0% Ease of implementation 12 0% 5 0% 6 0% Safety concerns (transport safety / crime in area) 12 0% 2 0% 8 0% Expression of support for Route 2 11 0% 1 0% 8 0% Regeneration of surrounding area 8 0% 2 0% 6 0% Fitness for future growth 8 0% 7 0% 0 0% Crossrail 2 is uncertain 7 0% 2 0% 2 0% Effects on businesses / commercial properties 5 0% 3 0% 1 0% Effects on housing value 4 0% 1 0% 2 0% Expression of opposition for Tram 2 0% 0 0% 2 0% Expression of support for BRT 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% Parking concerns 2 0% 0 0% 2 0% Expression of opposition for Route 1 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% Expression of opposition for Route 2 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% Potential for industrial action 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% Out of scope comment 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Unclear comment 4 0% 2 0% 1 0% Don’t Know / None 28 1% 2 0% 17 1%

4.2.3 Prefered route option We asked respondents to tell us if they had an overall preference for a route. The majority of respondents had a preferred route (84 per cent). The chart below shows level of preference for each route option.

Figure 17 Route preference

Option 1

Option 2

35% 41% Option 3

23%

All Respondents (4,944)

Route option 1 was the most preferred route (preferred by 41 per cent who stated a preference). While route option 2 was the least preferred (23 per cent), it was also supported or strongly supported by 55 per cent of respondents (see figure 15 for a breakdown of the support and opposition to each route individually).

4.2.4 Further comments on the route options We asked respondents if they had any other comments they wished to make about the route options we included in the consultation and provided a free-text box within our consultation questionnaire. The comments provided by respondents were analysed by 2CV and a ‘code frame’ produced which listed the issues and confirmed how frequently each was raised. The table below lists the top 10 most frequently raised issues by respondents about the route options we included in our consultation. A copy of the complete list of issues raised by respondents in included in Appendix B.

Figure 18 Top 10 most frequently raised issues about the route options Further Comments on Route Options Total % Alternative schemes / destinations to serve (eg Sutton to Croydon, London Cancer 568 22% Hub, St. Helier Hospital, Belmont, Royal Marsden Hospital) In-principle support 362 14% Tram - In principle support 255 10% In-principle opposition 254 10% Concerns about funding / cost 214 8% Option 3 not needed/Already transport in place 201 8% Concerns about impact on Thameslink / removal of current Thameslink 189 7%

Would be easier / cheaper to improve / increase frequency / capacity of existing 185 7% services Option 1 improves connectivity / reaches areas not currently served by other transport 179 7% (eg areas, shops, transport links) Concerns about traffic impacts (eg Rosehill, Central Road Morden, general impacts) 166 6%

4.3 Transport Options

4.3.1 Support or opposition for the transport options We asked respondents to tell us their level of support or opposition for each of the two transport options.

Figure 19 Support and opposition for each transport option 100%

Strongly support 90% 18%

80% Support

70% 61% 22%

Don’t know 60% 2%

50% 25% Neither support nor oppose

40% Proportion Proportion respondents of

30% 20% Oppose

17%

20% 1% 8% Strongly oppose 10% 4% 16% 7% 0% Tram Bus Rapid Transit All respondents (5,801) All respondents (5,771)

The majority of respondents showed strong support for a tram option (81 per cent supported or strongly supported this option). In contrast, there was a greater proportion of opposition to the Bus Rapid Transit Option: a total of 33 per cent of 31 respondents opposed or strongly opposed the Bus Rapid Transit, as opposed to 11 per cent of respondents who were opposed or strongly opposed to the Tram.

4.3.2 Issues which were most important to respondents and which influenced their level of support or opposition for the transport options We asked respondents what issues were most important to them and had influenced their support or opposition to each of the transport options we described in the consultation. We provided respondents with a list of issues they could consider, and invited them to select as many as best described their position. We also enabled respondents to describe any other issues which were important to them in free text.

For each of the following tables, the percentage columns indicate the total proportion of respondents who selected the options ‘Support’ or ‘Oppose’ from the total number who answered. We have not included those respondents who did not answer, or who selected another option. A copy of the complete list of issues raised by respondents in included in Appendix B.

Figure 20 Issues of importance to respondents and which influenced their support or opposition to each transport option Reasons for Support / Opposition for Tram Total Support Oppose Base 5,700 % 4,631 % 626 % Survey options provided: Frequency of service 3,145 55% 2,890 62% 92 15% Onward journey connections provided 3,072 54% 2,812 61% 111 18% Public transport journey times 3,067 54% 2,812 61% 109 17% Environmental impacts 2,595 46% 2,137 46% 300 48% Passengers carried per vehicle 2,568 45% 2,369 51% 76 12% Traffic congestion 2,413 42% 1,835 40% 377 60% Value for money 2,129 37% 1,549 33% 400 64% Scale of construction required 1,283 23% 663 14% 409 65% Other comments made: Places served by route 52 1% 23 0% 18 3% Not needed / Other transport / route options already exist 41 1% 4 0% 35 6% Passenger experience (eg comfort, cleanliness, enjoyable, 40 1% 35 1% 2 0% convenience, quality, reliability) Expression of support for Tram 35 1% 30 1% 1 0% Integration into existing network 28 0% 25 1% 3 0% Safety concerns (transport safety / crime in area) 28 0% 7 0% 17 3% Permanence / stability 15 0% 15 0% 0 0% Accessibility 12 0% 12 0% 0 0% Impact on the condition of roads 11 0% 4 0% 6 1% Efficiency 11 0% 7 0% 4 1% Expression of opposition for Tram 11 0% 1 0% 10 2%

Fitness for future growth 11 0% 9 0% 1 0% Economy impact 11 0% 8 0% 3 0% Enhancement of surrounding area 10 0% 10 0% 0 0% Expression of opposition for BRT 10 0% 8 0% 1 0% Effects on rail or bus services 7 0% 0 0% 4 1% Suggestion of alternative transport mode (eg underground 6 0% 2 0% 4 1% / overground extension) Negative impact on perception of area 6 0% 0 0% 6 1% Ease with which the route could be diverted in 5 0% 0 0% 3 0% future/interchange with other services Need more information / details 5 0% 0 0% 3 0% Cyclist and pedestrian impacts 5 0% 0 0% 5 1% Improve existing services / routes instead of adding new 4 0% 1 0% 3 0% one Parking concerns 3 0% 0 0% 2 0% Number of transport options provided 2 0% 1 0% 0 0% Ability to operate driverless 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% Expression of support for BRT 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% Effects on housing value 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% BRT has bad track record 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% BRT is too similar to a bus 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% Unclear comment 3 0% 2 0% 1 0%

Reasons for Support / Opposition for BRT Total Support Oppose Base 5,501 % 2,228 % 1,875 % Survey options provided: Traffic congestion 2,854 52% 778 35% 1359 72% Public transport journey times 2,431 44% 1,135 51% 747 40% Frequency of service 2,373 43% 1,355 61% 505 27% Passengers carried per vehicle 2,035 37% 648 29% 856 46% Environmental impacts 1,997 36% 844 38% 735 39% Value for money 1,786 32% 882 40% 558 30% Onward journey connections provided 1,724 31% 1,024 46% 317 17% Scale of construction required 1,213 22% 679 30% 318 17% Other comments made: Not needed / Other transport / route options already exist 56 1% 1 0% 50 3% Places served by route 45 1% 8 0% 24 1% Passenger experience (eg comfort, cleanliness, enjoyable, 45 1% 3 0% 29 2% convenience, quality, reliability) Expression of support for Tram 40 1% 3 0% 27 1% Expression of opposition for BRT 30 1% 1 0% 26 1% Integration into existing network 27 0% 3 0% 18 1% Safety concerns (transport safety / crime in area) 26 0% 7 0% 12 1% Expression of support for BRT 19 0% 14 1% 3 0% 33

Impact on the condition of roads 18 0% 4 0% 12 1% Fitness for future growth 18 0% 8 0% 7 0% BRT is too similar to a bus 17 0% 2 0% 11 1% Need more information / details 16 0% 1 0% 3 0% Efficiency 15 0% 1 0% 11 1% Expression of opposition for Tram 10 0% 5 0% 4 0% Suggestion of alternative transport mode (eg underground 8 0% 2 0% 4 0% / overground extension) Improve existing services / routes instead of adding new 7 0% 1 0% 3 0% one Number of transport options provided 7 0% 0 0% 4 0% Accessibility 7 0% 1 0% 5 0% Economy impact 7 0% 2 0% 4 0% Negative impact on perception of area 6 0% 0 0% 5 0% BRT has bad track record 6 0% 0 0% 4 0% Effects on rail or bus services 5 0% 1 0% 2 0% Permanence / stability 5 0% 0 0% 3 0% Ease with which the route could be diverted in 4 0% 3 0% 1 0% future/interchange with other services Cyclist and pedestrian impacts 2 0% 0 0% 2 0% Enhancement of surrounding area 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% Parking concerns 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Ability to operate driverless 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Out of scope comment 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% Unclear comment 5 0% 1 0% 4 0% DK / None / No answer 33 1% 5 0% 14 1%

4.3.3 Transport option preference We asked respondents to tell us if they had an overall preference for a transport option.

The majority of respondents had a preferred transport option (80%). The chart below shows level of preference for each transport option.

Figure 21 Overall transport option preference

16% Tram

Bus Rapid Transit

84%

All Respondents (4,671)

4.3.4 Further comments on the transport options We asked respondents if they had any other comments they wished to make about the route options we included in the consultation, and provided a free-text box within our consultation questionnaire. The comments provided by respondents were analysed by 2CV and a ‘code frame’ produced which listed the issues and confirmed how frequently each was raised. The table below lists the top 10 most frequently raised issues by respondents about the transport options we included in our consultation. A copy of the complete list of issues raised by respondents in included in Appendix B.

Figure 22 Top 10 most frequently raised issues about the transport options Further Comments on Transport Options Total % Tram - In principle support 165 12% Alternative schemes / destinations to serve (eg Sutton to Croydon, London Cancer 145 11% Hub, St. Helier Hospital, Belmon, Royal Marsden Hospital) In-principle opposition 136 10% Tram service is known / proven / has good track record 112 8% In-principle support 108 8% Concerns about funding / cost 95 7% BRT traffic concerns 95 7% Would be easier / cheaper to improve / increase frequency / capacity of existing 73 5% services Comments about timings (eg Build sooner) 64 5% Tram would allow for better integration with / extension of existing infrastructure 61 5% 35

4.4 Quality of Consultation We asked respondents to rate the quality of our consultation.

Figure 23 Views on the quality of the consultation 100%

90% Very good

80% 37%

70% Good

60%

50% Acceptable 39% 40%

30% Poor Proportion Proportion respondents of 20% 19% 10% Very poor 3% 0% 1% All Respondents (5,717)

The majority of respondents (76 per cent) said the quality of the consultation was very good or good.

4.5 List of responding stakeholders We received responses to the consultation from a total of 45 organisations we would consider to be ‘stakeholders3’. We have listed these stakeholders below. We have also provided a summary of each of the responses we received from these organisations.

Ahmadiyya Muslim Association UK London Borough of Croydon AP Cohen Properties Ltd London Borough of Merton Aviva Investors London Borough of Sutton Belmont, South Sutton & South Cheam London TravelWatch Neighbourhood Forum Caroline Pidgeon AM Love Wimbledon BID CBRE Global Investors Merton Chamber of Commerce Clapham Transport Users Group Merton Conservative Group Cllr Andrew Pelling Merton Cycling Campaign

3 We would consider a ‘stakeholder’ any notable organisation, including a London Borough, Member of Parliament or Assembly Member, Residents Association or Civic Society, transport group or major employer. For the purposes of this consultation we have also considered affected landowners to be stakeholders 36

Metropolitan Police Service Designing Out Cllr Elliot Colburn Crime office Mitcham Cricket Green Community & Cllr Jamie Audsley Heritage Cllr Param Nandha National Trust Colliers Wood Community Association Network Rail Cycling UK/Cyclists Touring Club Office of Rail & Road East Surrey Transport Committee Railfuture Epsom & St Helier NHS Trust Royal Marsden NHS Trust Get Sutton Cycling Safestore Go Ahead London South London Partnership Greenshaw Residents Engagement Group South Wimbledon Business Area BID Heathdene Area Residents Association Steve O’Connell AM Historic England Suez Recycling & Recovery UK Ltd Institute of Cancer Research TfL Youth Panel Light Rail Transit Association Worcester Park Residents Association London Borough of Bromley

4.5.1 Summaries of stakeholder responses

This section summarises each of the responses we received from respondents whom we would consider to be ‘stakeholders’. These summaries are included only in order to assist readers of this report to understand in broad terms what issues stakeholders raised with us. The original, verbatim response from each stakeholder were analysed to identify the issues raised.

AP Cohen Properties Ltd

The freeholder of units in the Liongate Enterprise Park. Supported route option 2 and requested to be kept informed of future developments.

Ahmadiyya Muslim Association

Supported route option 1, with a preference for it to be operated with trams.

Aviva Investors

Owner of the Merton Industrial Estate. Emphasises the role of the London Plan in ensuring sufficient industrial land in London, and LB Merton strategic planning objectives in recognising the South Wimbledon Business Area as a ‘critical and highly successful element of LB Merton’s industrial stock’. Raised serious concerns about the negative impacts they perceived that route option 1 might have on the South Wimbledon Business Area, including in regards reduced access, land take and uncertainty to investment. 37

Belmont, South Sutton & Cheam Forum

Disagreed with the principle of the Sutton Link, querying the case for the required investment. Suggested that the London Overground service should be extended to Sutton, Belmont and Epsom Downs, amongst other suggestions for local improvements. Provided comments about the perceived impacts of the options included in the consultation, notably negative traffic impacts. Commented on alternatives to route option 3 which they felt would be more effective and cost less.

Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM

Strongly supports the proposals with a particular focus on route option 1. Supported an eventual extension of the Sutton Link to the London Cancer Hub. Supported option 2 only if option 1 operated by a tram could not be delivered. Did not support option 3. Explained several reasons for supporting a tram over Bus Rapid Transit.

CBRE Investors

Owner of part of the Liongate Enterprise Park. Supports the Sutton Link in principle but raised concerns about the impacts of route option 2 on land take within the Lionsgate Enterprise Park. Highlighted the importance of the park as a source of employment, referencing the role of the London Plan and local planning policy in protecting industrial land.

Clapham Transport Users Group

Broadly welcomed the Sutton Link but highlighted concerns that the new link could exacerbate crowding on the Northern line, impacting on passengers at Clapham Common or Clapham North LUL stations. Reflected on the advantages and disadvantages of each option, and strongly supported route option 3.

Cllr Andrew Pelling, London Borough of Croydon

Expressed a preference for the Sutton Link to be operated with trams.

Cllr Elliot Colburn, London Borough of Sutton

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with a preference for route options 1 or 2.

Cllr Jamie Audsley, London Borough of Croydon

Expressed a preference for the Sutton Link to be operated with trams. Supported route option 2 over the others.

Cllr Param Nandha, London Borough of Sutton

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with a particular preference for route option 2. Preferred that the link be operated with Bus Rapid Transit. 38

Colliers Wood Community Association

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with a particular preference for route option 2. Highlighted the potential for housing growth in Colliers Wood. Preferred that the link be operated with Bus Rapid Transit.

Cycling UK/Cycling Tourist Club

Strongly opposed the Sutton Link in principle. Highlighted the potential disruption that construction of a tram line would cause and suggested tram lines are ‘treacherous’ for cyclists when wet.

East Surrey Transport Committee

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle with a clear preference for it to be operated with trams, suggesting that Bus Rapid Transit would not provide similar benefits. Supported route option 2 over the others included in the consultation, but asked that provision be included for an extension to St Georges Hospital. Commented on the relative disbenefits of options 1 and 3 in comparison to option 2.

Epsom & St Helier Hospital

Expressed a preference for route options 1 or 2, providing additional comments about preferred stopping arrangements at the hospital. Highlighted plans for new hospital buildings and asked that these be connected to the new Sutton Link.

Get Sutton Cycling

Suggested the Sutton Link also represents an opportunity to expand cycle safety. Called for the provision of cycle paths, with physical protection on busy roads, and cycling parking at hubs and stations/stops.

Go Ahead London

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with a preference for route option 2 and operated with Bus Rapid Transit.

Greenshaw Residents Engagement Group

Supported the Sutton Link in principle, with a preference for route option 3 operated by trams. Highlighted concerns about the traffic impacts of options 1 and 2, particularly at Rose Hill and Angel Hill.

Heathdene Area Residents Association

Strongly supports the Sutton Link in principle, with a particular preference for route option 1, to be operated with trams.

Historic England

Advocated a further, detailed assessment of the impacts of the Sutton Link on the historic environment. Also called for potential improvements to the historic environment to be identified. Highlighted those heritage assets which might be affected by each option.

Institute of Cancer Research

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle. Did not express a preference between the route options included in the consultation on the basis of an understanding that all could be extended to the London Cancer Hub in future. Endorsed an extension to the Hub.

Light Rail Transit Association

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with additional support for either route options 1 or 2. Strongly supported either route being operated with trams, highlighting a number of perceived advantages of trams over Bus Rapid Transit.

London Borough of Bromley

Suggested that the Sutton Link would have a limited effect on Bromley, but expressed a general preference for route option 2 (although it did not rule out changing its position in future). Suggested that if Bus Rapid Transit was pursued as a transport option, then the savings (over a tram operation) should be invested in Bromley.

London Borough of Croydon

‘Wholeheartedly’ welcomed the proposals but highlighted concerns in regards implications for Croydon, particularly a perception that deliveries of tram improvements in Croydon were not being sufficiently progressed. Queried how the cost of the Sutton Link would be met.

London Borough of Merton

Welcomed the opportunity to work with TfL in developing the Sutton Link. Expressed a preference for route option 1. Sought further information on the potential impacts on industrial land take and strongly opposed the loss of any commercial land. Had concerns about route option 2, but would support it as an alternative to option 1 if the concerns could be addressed, which included the aesthetic impacts of a proposed bridge at Belgrave Walk tram stop. Suggested routeing options for route option 3. ‘Strongly favoured’ the Sutton Link being operated with trams.

London Borough of Sutton

Emphasised their long-term commitment to the Sutton Link. Strongly supported route option 1, and outlined their reasoning for this, but made clear that they would support route option 2 if option 1 could not be delivered. Suggested a tram would be 40 more effective than Bus Rapid Transit, and outlined their reasoning for this, stating the tram was the Council's preferred mode.

London TravelWatch

Highlighted a concern that St Helier hospital would not be served under any option. Opposed to option 3 on the basis of dis-benefits to existing rail users and raised a concern about a lack of interchange between route options 1 or 2 and the existing tram network at Morden Road or Belgrave Walk. Commented that they could support the Sutton Link being operated with Bus Rapid Transit.

Love Wimbledon BID

Supportive of route option 1, operated with Bus Rapid Transit. Also suggested an increase in the frequency of train services between Wimbledon and Sutton.

Merton Chamber of Commerce

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with preference for route option 2 to be operated with trams.

Merton Conservative Group

Supported route option 2, and outlined their reasoning. Raised a concern about how the Sutton Link would be funded, making clear that residents should not be subject to additional taxes to fund construction of the new link.

Merton Cycling Campaign

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with particular support for route options 1 or 2. They did not however express any preference for the link to be operated either with trams or Bus Rapid Transit vehicles. Highlighted potential safety hazards to cyclists of tram tracks and requested that the project also include the introduction of new segregated cycle tracks. Highlighted additional concerns about construction, traffic and safety impacts.

Metropolitan Police Service, Designing out Crime office

Supported the Sutton Link in principle but with no preference either for a route or transport option. Emphasised that any new infrastructure should include measures to ‘design out’ crime.

Mitcham Cricket Green & Heritage

Supportive of the Sutton Link in principle with a preference for route option 2. Was critical however of the lack of information provided about the proposals and sought a further consultation, which would address the perceived shortcomings, prior to any decision on a route/transport option. Sought further information, including on future

41 arrangements for stabling and maintenance, and in regards integration with future development at Benedict Wharf, amongst others.

Network Rail

Suggested that an assessment should be undertaken of the ability of Sutton station to accommodate increased passenger movements if the Sutton Link were introduced. Identified a number of issues in regards route option 3 they would seek to discuss, including the impacts of the prolonged closure of affected Thameslink rail services, coordination with Crossrail 2 proposals at Wimbledon and the appropriateness of the West Sutton area for turning trams, amongst others.

Office of Rail & Road

Had no comments on routeing options and emphasised that it had no role in the regulation of Bus Rapid Transit services. Identified issues they would recommend be considered during the further development of any tram option.

Railfuture

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle, with a preference for option 2, to be operated with trams. Suggested that route options 1 and 2 both be developed further.

Royal Marsden NHS Trust

Welcomed the proposals and made the case for significant improvements in public transport provision to the Royal Marsden hospital. Had no preference between route options, but wished for any new link to be introduced as quickly as possible.

Safestore

Owner of a freehold property on Morden Road. Concerned that the introduction of route option 2 would impact negatively on their premises and sought further information on land-take impacts. Objected to route option 2 on the basis of a perception that it would require unacceptable land-loss.

South London Partnership

Supportive in principle of the Sutton Link, and explained their reasoning. Expressed a strong preference for the link to be operated with trams. Stressed the importance of identifying future funding sources.

South Wimbledon Business Area BID

Acknowledged that there would be major benefits to be gained from Option 1 due to better public transport access although this would have implications for the current geographical area of the BID and implementation would directly affect a number of BID business premises. Had no firm views on the transport options provided in the consultation, although they noted the differences42 in infrastructure requirements between Tram and Bus Rapid Transit. Steve O’Connell AM

Broadly endorsed the response submitted by East Surrey Transport Committee. Emphasised his support for trams and favoured route option 2. Also highlighted the importance of a tram link between St Georges hospital and Royal Marsden hospital.

Suez Recycling & Recovery Ltd

Owner of a site on Benedict Wharf, in close proximity to route option 2. Queried the full extent of the impacts of the introduction of the Sutton Link. Requested discussions with TfL to understand the implications of Sutton Link in more detail.

TfL Youth Panel4

Strongly supported the Sutton Link in principle. Expressed a preference for the link to be operated with trams, and expressed support for either route options 1 or 2. Suggested a loop route, incorporating both route options 1 and 2.

The National Trust

Responded as the owner of Morden Hall Park. Welcomed the proposed for route options 1 and 2. Had no preference as to transport options and raised potential concerns in regards noise and lighting intrusion, amongst others.

Worcester Park Residents Association

Strongly objected to the proposals on the basis that they would not benefit residents but would be costly to build. Also raised a concern about negative traffic impacts arising from the introduction of the Sutton Link.

4 For further information see https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/schools-and- young-people/youth-involvement#on-this-page-0

5. Next steps

We are now reviewing every relevant issue raised by respondents to our consultation so that we can decide which route and transport option to progress to the next stage in the development of the Sutton Link. We will make a decision on the preferred option later this year, and we will announce our decision as soon as possible after we have made it. We will also publish a ‘Responses to issues raised’ document at this time, listing and responding to all of the issues raised by respondents to this consultation.